Rare "Healthy" Smokers Lungs Explained

Bruce66423 writes: New research suggests that a portion of the population suffers few problems from smoking because their genes enable the smoke's effects to be overcome. The Medical Research Council reports: "The new findings, which used the first analyses of genetic data from participants in UK Biobank, may one day help scientists develop better treatments for diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a collection of life-threatening lung disorders affecting almost one million people in the UK. The findings could also help improve interventions aimed at helping smokers to give up."

Comments

Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

A genetic test that defines who can smoke an who can't, great.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

I quit all forms of smoking years ago over health concerns. If I found out I had that gene, I'd take up smoking weed again. I miss it.

Re: Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

So smoke weed. Just take it easy. Weed isn't like cigarettes at all. For 1 it lasts longer than an hour so no need to smoke all day.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Vaporizer.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[MagickalMyst]

Marijuana is not at all harmful like cigarettes. Inhaling any smoke is not good for you, however, the main difference is that marijuana is just a dried out plant which is basically harmless.

Commercial tobacco, by comparison, is not just a plant but it is loaded with a plethora of toxic chemicals - including ammonia, DDT, arsenic, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide - just to name a few. More here.

Marijuana can also have health benefits. I have never heard of medicinal tobacco.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[drinkypoo]

Marijuana can also have health benefits. I have never heard of medicinal tobacco.

If you look around you can find information on a number of health benefits to tobacco, many of which are legitimate. The problem is, the drawbacks outweigh them.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Marijuana is not at all harmful like cigarettes

Right. It's harmful like marijuana, which clearly causes no parallel effects to cigarettes like elevated pulse, vasoconstriction, altered state of consciosness, and has no chance of causing addiction or of introducing naturally carcinogenic chemicals to your mouth and other respiratory passages.

That belief is strange, because it causes _all_ of those according to the reliable medical research. It's even stranger when surveys of the purity of street grade consistently show adulteration with different filler substances and mood-altering substances: a great deal of street grade marijuna is very poor quality, may be pesticide or herbicide contaminated, and is very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US. Moreover, tobacco and nicotine are still used medicinally, and even as an effective toothpaste in some parts of the world.

It's important to keep the scale of risk and benefit in mind for both, but to assert that one is completely harmless and the other completely useless midically is to ignore history and well-executed research on both.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[rholtzjr]

You should not be finding DDT in any product produced in the US. This has been banned since 1972 for any agricultural products. Also I can not believe that all the listed ingredients are in a single cigarette.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[will_die]

Looking at the research MJ is actually worse than you for recreational smoking than recreational smoking of tobacco. The difference is that you inhale less MJ so over the long run it is not as dangerous.
as for those toxic chemicals and heavy metals they are also present in cannabis. They mostly come from the type of fertilizer you use, so the more modern synthetic the less contamination, and the more animal and organic fertilizers you use the higher contaminants you will have.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[sjbe]

Marijuana is not at all harmful like cigarettes. Inhaling any smoke is not good for you, however, the main difference is that marijuana is just a dried out plant which is basically harmless.

Innocuous? Maybe. Harmless? Demonstrably not.

Commercial tobacco, by comparison, is not just a plant but it is loaded with a plethora of toxic chemicals

First off, comparisons with tobacco based smokes is the very definition of damning with faint praise. There is basically nothing redeeming about tobacco based smokes. Second, marijuana has plenty of adverse effects of its own. Just because it isn't as toxic as other products isn't really germane.

Marijuana can also have health benefits

Spare me. "Medical marijuana" is in almost all cases nothing more than a fig leaf to cover people who want to get high. I do not actually care if people want to smoke weed but it offends me that they think I'm so stupid as to think more than a tiny number are doing so for any valid medical reason. I don't have a problem with people using it for actual medicinal properties (and it does appear to have some) but then it should be sold at a pharmacy like any other drug. I really don't have a problem with people smoking weed so long as they do so responsibly. I do have a problem with people pretending it is for medical conditions when it really isn't.

I have never heard of medicinal tobacco.

Tobacco is an important research crop and has its uses. It's not used so much directly as a medication but it does have some positive impact in this regard. Probably the only positive thing about it really.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[NatasRevol]

So move to Colorado/Washington where you can grow your own pot legally. And put as much or as little extra in there as you want.

At least lower one risk.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[NatasRevol]

Also I can not believe that all the listed ingredients are in a single cigarette.

Why not? It's widely documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[NotDrWho]

If you dry out tobacco for smoking, the hippies will call it vile poison and try to have it banned.

If you dry out marijuana for smoking, the hippies will call it a miracle-cure-all medicine and try to have it legalized.

Silly hippies.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

You really can't understand that these "hippies" are much smarter than you are.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[PopeRatzo]

If you look around you can find information on a number of health benefits to tobacco, many of which are legitimate.

Listen to drinky. Nicotine is a really pretty great medicinal. It was Adderall before there was Big Pharma, and it's not a fluke that Native Americans made it a sacrament. The main problem with smoking is not the drug, but the delivery system.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not, they're just stoners who want to justify getting baked all day with some bullshit "Marijuana is the miracle drug of the modern age!" snake-oil horseshit.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[circletimessquare]

maybe if you grow your own or buy in a place that is legal. but illegal marijuana is cut with all sorts of crap that makes it far far worse than the crap tobacco companies put in cigarettes. dealers will cut marijuana with all sorts of shit. and i mean that literally:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.... (tldr: the cdc saw a salmonella outbreak, and traced it to distributors cutting weed with feces)

illegal drugs are horrible to consume as you have zero accountability or responsibility for who put what in it. if something you buy at a store poisons you, you can go after the seller and/ or manufacturer. like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/... (tldr: company executive faked peanut tests, people died of salmonella poisoning, executive goes to jail for a long time)

in many ways, it's an argument for legalization/ decriminalization/ some sort of safe harbor provision so people aren't being killed by who knows what poison some asshole puts in their drugs. but until such time, you need to either grow your own, move to a place your drug of choice is legal, or find some sort of chain of distribution that you implicitly trust. but taking some pill some low life asshole you don't know says is {XYZ} is a way to get parkinson's disease, cancer, or violently ill

what kind of blows my mind is morons like yourself who rail against evil corporations and modern food growth and distribution, and then will eat/ smoke/ shoot some poison form some random douchebag who is a genuinely amoral asshole

really?

corporations do plenty of evil in the world, but drug dealer's are yet many many levels lower on that measure of integrity or sense of morals. why is that corporations get so much distrust form you, but some shitbag slinging drugs is someone you trust with chemicals you put in your body?

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[MrTester]

Pot is considered less dangerous because the typical pot smoker smokes way less than your typical cigarette smoker. YMMV.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[RollTRS]

> surveys of the purity of street grade consistently show adulteration with different filler substances and mood-altering substances

Absolutely false.

>very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US

Also an urban myth. There is absolutely no benefit for a dealer to buy a more expensive drug to add to marijuana, given that they would lose money if they didn't outright charge far above street price, and would at that point have to disclose some sort of reasoning. Secondly, nobody buying weed who got something with "laced with PCP" would ever return as a customer (unless they were looking for that to begin with), so it's self defeating in that right as well.

Re: Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Bing Tsher E]

Also a problem is that smokers tend to saturate their system completely with the insecticide toxins (nicotine is an insecticide that plants naturally evolved). Traditional tobacco and medicinal users smoke occasionally.

That 'rummy' smell of a pickled alcoholic is similar to the saturated nicotine smell of a cigarette addict.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[RollTRS]

Spare me. "Medical marijuana" is in almost all cases nothing more than a fig leaf to cover people who want to get high

Tell that to the families with children with epilepsy being successfully treated for seizures and other symptoms using cannabis oil. Your information is extremely prejudiced, and out of date. There are many people with debilitating diseases and conditions that cannabis can provide treatment or relief from.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[areusche]

There is so much fail in this I don't even know where to start.

Marijuana has far more positive health effects than negative. In fact THC the chemical that gets you "high" is anti carcinogenic and has proven cancer fighting effects http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

"Purity" of street level product. Oy vey what a statement. You realize your fruits and vegetables have pesticides and herbicides on them as well right? Not to mention all of the nutrient "uptake" from fertilizers is in that plant. You are what you eat, includes plants as well. As for "purity" of the THC content, you either have cheap herb or dank green. Even a plant you grow yourself will have varying quality of THC. In the same way that your vegetables grown in the back yard won't have 100% the same nutritional facts as something grown on a properly fertilized farm.

Finally, PCP laced marijuana? Are you kidding me? Why would any dealer bother lacing weed with PCP? You know PCP is insanely more expensive than marijuana right? Why would a dealer undercut his own prices lacing it with a drug as ridiculous as PCP? Stop quoting DARE literature from 1982.

Want to know a secret about life long tobacco smokers? They're most likely cannabis smokers as well (that anti-carcinogenic effect).

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the answer here is don't get your marijuana from the "unlicensed pharmacist" on the street corner. Get it from a reputable and licensed retailer instead.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[MagickalMyst]

"Nicotine is a really pretty great medicinal."

Perhaps, but I was talking about commercial tobacco -which contains nicotine - but it is very harmful.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicotine is pretty toxic, which is no surprise given its evolutionary function. Big Pharma nowadays is pretty good at optimizing effect/risk, although the price has been high (e.g. Softenon). They'd probably be able to engineer a less toxic nicotine equivalent.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[MagickalMyst]

"marijuana...has no chance of causing addiction...it causes _all_ of those according to the reliable medical research."

False. Marijuana is not physically addictive.

"a great deal of street grade marijuna is very poor quality, may be pesticide or herbicide contaminated, and is very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US"

False. Marijuana is very rarely laced with anything. That would be bad for business.

Perhaps you should give up your reefer madness FUD and go smoke a joint for yourself. You might learn something.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[MagickalMyst]

If you're not going to inhale, then please just shut up and pass it on already!

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[MagickalMyst]

Nope. You are comparing apples and car tires.

The only thing that could possibly compared is the amount of tar in a marijuana joint vs a cigarette. Marijuana has more. And that's where the comparison ends.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[jellomizer]

Still you should concern yourself of the effect of second hand smoke on others. For those without the Gene, as well for those people who just doesn't like the smell. Attempts for smoking bands in the States (for Tobacco) had no movement until the effects of second hand smoke came across.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[MagickalMyst]

"illegal marijuana is cut with all sorts of crap that makes it far far worse than the crap tobacco companies put in cigarettes"

Maybe on your planet, but here on earth that is not the case at all.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, about 0.0001% of the MJ users. Give us a break. Go ahead and smoke but don't pretend it is medicine.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[sjbe]

Tell that to the families with children with epilepsy being successfully treated for seizures and other symptoms using cannabis oil.

Just as soon as you provide adequate evidence in the form of unambiguous medical studies confirming its effectiveness for the conditions. Right now the evidence for cannibidiol is largely anecdotal and the effectiveness or lack thereof is unclear.

Even if it does work it doesn't follow that because a demonstrably small number of people get genuine medical relief I'm supposed to believe that everybody people seeking marijuana are actually doing so for legitimate medical reasons. You must be either high yourself or dumb if you believe that. I had a dispensary open up (briefly) right next door to my office about 3 years ago. I assure you that NOBODY (or near as makes no difference) that was showing up was the slightest bit ill. These were people looking to get high. The medical exemption was largely an effort for most people to make an end run around federal and state laws against the substance so they could get high. Nothing more.

Your information is extremely prejudiced, and out of date.

Prejudiced? Hardly. I don't give a shit at all if people want to smoke weed recreationally. I just want them to be honest about it and stop pretending that it has anything to do with medicine for all but a tiny handful of cases.

There are many people with debilitating diseases and conditions that cannabis can provide treatment or relief from.

"Many"? Define many. I'll concur that the number is greater than zero. However the real number is a LOT less than the number seeking the product through. My wife is a physician and has been asked plenty of times for a prescription for marijuana by someone with no relevant medical condition.

Re: Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't grow your own legally in Washington.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[MrTester]

Not sure I follow.
The comparison is "perceived health effect of marijuana smoke vs perceived health effects of cigarette smoke."
Maybe its only tar as you say, maybe its not. I make no claims either way.
If its just tar than my statement holds up: Despite marijuana having more tar, pot smokers use a smaller volume of product than tobacco smokers so there is less of a marijuana tar problem regardless of the per gram tar ratios.
If its more than just tar than the statement still holds up for those as well.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there was a -1 self-righteous mod

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does "perceived" benefit matter at all? People perceive stuff wrongly all the time. It's not rocket science that inhaling any kind of smoke containing any kind of burned particles is going to have some amount of deleterious effect on one's lungs. In the days of legitimate, sub-60 dollar vaporizors (real ones, not the pseudo vape pens) you're basically an idiot for doing it, but whatever, we all do stuff that's bad for our health.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

why is that corporations get so much distrust form you, but some shitbag slinging drugs is someone you trust with chemicals you put in your body?

Not everyone lives in a state where they need to buy marijuana from some shitbag

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[mjm1231]

"a great deal of street grade marijuna is very poor quality, may be pesticide or herbicide contaminated, and is very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US"
  False. Marijuana is very rarely laced with anything. That would be bad for business.

You just claimed a statement was false and then claimed as true a statement which means essentially the same thing. You're high right now, aren't you?

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Save time and just write "yeah well veggies too."

Here's another example of brevity: "Regulated."

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

A genetic test that defines who can smoke an who can't, great.

Oh, much, much, more interesting: a genetic variation that allows certain people to maintain the function of a huge and delicate sponge of gas-exchange membrane despite heavy dosing with a grab bag of carcinogens, incomplete organic combustion products, and all sorts of unpleasantness.

The ability to smoke without consequence is peanuts compared to some of the possible applications of working out how that effect is created.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm not sure why anyone who wanted to use nicotine would choose the method that smells awful, severely limits your options in public, and will probably trash your lungs when you can get the same active ingredient in other delivery mechanisms; but nicotine actually has all sorts of interesting properties. The most intriguing, but poorly understood(surprise surprise, given the level of understanding in the area generally), are probably the ones that show up in people with schizophrenia. Effects are less dramatic in the general population; but plants evolved nicotine to interact with pests' nervous systems, so it does tickle the brain in various ways.

That said, even if we stopped being idiots about delivery method; nicotine is [i]crazy[/i] addictive, so it's a bit harder to recommend picking it up on the basis of some intriguing but unverified talk.It isn't terribly harmful if you aren't huffing burning cigarettes like an idiot; but it still punches well above its weight on habit formation.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a dispensary open up (briefly) right next door to my office about 3 years ago. I assure you that NOBODY (or near as makes no difference) that was showing up was the slightest bit ill.

I can assure you that you were not competent to determine that.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[undefinedreference]

Nicotine is a poison. The reason smoking is so bad for you is that nicotine increases the risk of cancer throughout one's body due to the way it disrupts apoptosis. It actually amplifies the negative effect of the other components.

If nicotine had any medicinal properties, why is it not a pharmaceutical? Why do we use it as a pesticide?

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[david_thornley]

Marijuana has been illegal in all states until recently, and is still illegal at the Federal level. Under those circumstances, it's going to be hard to run double-blind studies. The stuff appears to provide some benefits for some people.

The medicinal uses are for muscle spasms, chronic pain, to suppress nausea in people undergoing chemotherapy, as an appetite enhancer for people with HIV, and (from what I've heard) glaucoma and epilepsy. None of these are necessarily going to be apparent in people on the sidewalk near your office.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[PopeRatzo]

The reason smoking is so bad for you is that nicotine increases the risk of cancer throughout one's body due to the way it disrupts apoptosis.

Do you have any idea how much nicotine S C Wright, J Zhong, H Zheng and J W Larrick had to give to lab rats to get to a level where apoptosis was sufficiently inhibited to promote tumor growth? And did you know that the tumors already had to be caused by something else, that wasn't nicotine?

If nicotine had any medicinal properties, why is it not a pharmaceutical?

You think there are no pharmaceuticals that are poisons? Don't be a fool. Shall we list the pharmaceuticals that also inhibit apoptosis? They're using caspase inhibitors right now to treat spinal cord injuries with drugs that have about 100 times more apoptosis inhibition than nicotine.

Why do we use it as a pesticide?

For that matter, why do we use pesticides on our food? Why do we design special GMOs just so we can use more pesticides on our food?

Don't be so simple-minded. Nicotine at the levels casual users use does not cause cancer. It's the delivery system in smoking that causes cancer. And do you not know that there's arsenic in apples? Will you now start posting anti-apple FUD?

Re: Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you you little shit

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Antique Geekmeister]

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, it can be mildly addictive. Their claims are modest, and credible.

        http://www.drugabuse.gov/publi...

It's difficult to estimate the frequency of contamination of marijuana with other substances. But fairly frequent contamination is documented in "Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential", By Ethan B Russo

        https://books.google.com/books...

Ethan cites Johnson's old study of 8000 samples, with a wide array of contaminants, including tobacco and PCP. Johnson's study was from 30 years ago: an article in the Smithsonian magazine from March, 2015 cites the increasing levels of heavy metals and mold in modern marijuana:

          http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

So I'm afraid that the idea that pot is automatically uncontaminated and therefore safer than tobacco is ill-founded. It may be _less_ harmful, and have a _lower_ level of contamination. But it's apparently quite frequent to find things in actual testing that should not be in pot for human use.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[delt0r]

as long as you don't smoke anywhere near me. And would it killyou to use a breath mint. You guys stink.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

hilarious bit about the PCP.
I had run with a lot of dealers and users in my youth of all sorts of illicit substances growing up in the midwest US during the 90s, especially weed. I have never heard anyone ever having or using PCP. I doubt they could have gotten it if they tried, it just wasn't something people sold or wanted. I've never heard of anyone mixing anything with the weed prior to selling it either.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Reeznarch]

You have no idea whether the people were sick or not. Try going to a sports event and point out all the people with cancer or aids.

Re: Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon they will offer "gene therapy" to enable a person to smoke and not get sick. They will deliver this "gene therapy" in those shitty vaping devices.. Makes me sick..:

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[Methadras]

Until you burn it in order to inhale it and then things start getting tricky. Also the level of tar in high THC concentration weed is much higher than that of cigarettes.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[beastofburdon]

Replace "urban myth" with "government propaganda" and you would have it exactly right.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[beastofburdon]

maybe if you grow your own or buy in a place that is legal. but illegal marijuana is cut with all sorts of crap that makes it far far worse than the crap tobacco companies put in cigarettes. dealers will cut marijuana with all sorts of shit. and i mean that literally:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.... [discovermagazine.com] (tldr: the cdc saw a salmonella outbreak, and traced it to distributors cutting weed with feces)

I call bullshit on this. Have you ever even seen a bag of weed? The only way you could "cut" it with anything is if you sprayed a clear liquid on it that didn't have a strong smell. The idea of cutting it with shit? That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. There is no way that you could clean it off to where it wouldn't be blatantly obvious, not to mention it would smell like shit! If you buy weed that smells like shit you deserve to get sick.

Re:Smoking or not, that's the question.

[areusche]

Sentences, full. Write them.

I smoke a little...

[KGIII]

I don't smoke a lot but i smoke cigars daily - usually a few a day, sometimes a bit more but less in the past few years as I no longer drink. I used to smoke cigarettes quite often but not really all that regularly. When I did then I'd go through a pack a night while drinking and not smoke the rest of the time. Today, I smoke cigars.

I'm told that I have the constitution of a horse and that I'll outlive my doctor. Damn it.

Re:I smoke a little...

[Anonymous Coward]

You inhale cigar smoke?

Re:I smoke a little...

[Anonymous Coward]

You inhale cigar smoke?

Odd how this is the "spit or swallow" question for men.

Re:I smoke a little...

[rmdingler]

Cigarette quitter for 7+ months. I don't miss it as much with each passing month, although it still comes up occasionally when I have an adult beverage.

On the plus side, there seems to be a noticeable stamina improvement when climbing stairs and such, and no more morning hacking.

But. If I was reliably informed of my eminent demise, I would have some cigarettes... and probably donuts with ice cream.

Re:I smoke a little...

[KGIII]

I do. I do indeed. I love it. On very, very, rare occasions you can find me smoking a pipe that doesn't contain marijuana. I inhale that too.

I love the burst of cigar smoke in my lungs. It doesn't make me cough or anything and it tastes great. I used to like a fine cigar with rum and would sometimes dip the end in my rum (not the lit end, silly goose). Then I realized I was wasting good rum and ruining a cigar that I'd spent like $10+ on, sometimes much more than that.

I live quite a bit north of there but there's a tobacco store in Farmington, Maine. It's right off Route 2 - nice place. And they have a nice, humidity controlled, cigar section. Even better is when I can make it down to their store in Augusta - they have a walk-in humidor. It is as awesome as it sounds. I've actually considered turning a room in my house into one but I'm just not that picky.

I do have a portable humidor and it's pretty good sized. I take it with me when I travel - it's with me right now. I've decided to stay in Buffalo another night but I have to change rooms as it seems this room is promised to a couple who have some sort of sentimental attachment to this room. I am probably going to stay another night as well - I've got my reasoning.

But, yes, yes I do inhale cigar smoke. I know of some who do not. I don't really understand that. That would be like eating fat-free ice cream or drinking alcohol-free beer or decaffeinated coffee.

As an aside (like that's ever bothered me before) the Cubans do make a good cigar but I really don't rank it up there with the 'best' - at least not those that I've tried. No, I've smoked them but that was just because they were illegal and then because I could. It was a matter of the experience and not the quality. They're not bad, not by any means, but they're not the best. I'm not sure if I could say what I think is the best (and often price is secondary, some of the more expensive taste like ass and you get more consistency with a major commercial label) but I can firmly assert that it is not any specific Cuban that I'm aware of. Too bad, too. I like Cuba. I wish I liked their cigars more.

Re:I smoke a little...

[VAXcat]

My college roommate's father was a cigar smoker. He got mouth cancer. It was painful. it was also hard for him to do a lot of things after they had to amputate his lower jaw. Finally, it killed him. I don't have a lot of interest in anything that can cause that.

Re:I smoke a little...

[KGIII]

If you have no interest then my only suggestion is that you not do it.

Re:I smoke a little...

[imboboage0]

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for chiming in. I have mod points I almost used on you, but thought this might be a little more personal - it's not every day you get a decent informative post on Slashdot you read the entirety of and go... hmm. This sounds like a guy I can probably level with. Have a pleasant Monday, good sir.

Re:I smoke a little...

[KGIII]

S'not a problem. I'm not a huge fan of moderation and I have no idea how I have excellent karma as I am usually so far off topic that it's become a habit. ;)

I'd guess the average cigar that I smoke would be about $10 and I smoke as many as five a day on an average day. It's costly but worth it. What confuses me is those people who'd smoke them and not inhale. I mean, yeah, I did that first but I learned better ways. That's like having a 1/2 gram of crack/day addiction and just lighting it on fire for the smell! Absurd!

Anyhow, I suspect I've annoyed someone. They'll get tired eventually. Every couple of days someone comes along and marks me off-topic. Which is true, and I don't mind at all, so there's no need to waste mod points on me in either direction. Quite often someone comes along and 'fixes' it. I could just post with my karma bonus but where's the fun in that?

Re:I smoke a little...

[KGIII]

I probably will outlive my doctor. He's in his late 70s. I am in my late 50s. Longevity also runs in my family. See what happens when you jump to conclusions with too little information? Silly goose.

Re:I smoke a little...

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't. You will likely have cancer soon after smoking that much. You aren't a special snowflake.

Re:I smoke a little...

[KGIII]

There you go again. It appears that you failed to pay attention the first time.

So, I'll entertain you - I'm not doing anything more important. Let's start with the beginning, shall we?

Where did you attend medical school?
What was your specialty?
When did you pass the board?
Where do you currently practice?

Re:I smoke a little...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cigars are not meant to be inhaled, your comparison is invalid.

Re:I smoke a little...

[Anonymous Coward]

7 months later and you still think about smoking? Really?

When I quit, the most difficult time was the first two weeks. After a month without smoking, cigarettes were no longer a part of my thought process.

Re:I smoke a little...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have lungs made of cast iron. Of all the (admittedly few) people I know who smoke cigars, myself included, not one directly inhales the smoke. A typical cigar contains the same amount of nicotine as twenty cigarettes and I feel its effects without any of it reaching my lungs.

As for Cubans, there's a unique flavor and complexity that I simply do not get with other cigars. Their reputation took a serious hit at the turn of the millennium during Castro's drive to increase production but recent years have been some of the best ever and I've gone through several boxes without any of the quality issues experienced in the past.

Re:I smoke a little...

[KGIII]

I do smoke a lot of 'em so, yeah, they're probably pretty tough. I still managed to run a 5k and place first for my age group and 3rd over all this summer. The last batch of Cubans I got really had a lot of very distinct differences between them, hard to describe but inconsistent. I tend to get most of mine from across the border - in Canada. They are much better (and a lot less expensive) than if you go to Cuba (of course) though I've only been twice.

It's really hard to explain the flavor. They are definitely distinct. I suspect my preference is because I've been used to other variations for most of my adult life. It probably doesn't help that I smoked cigarettes for a number of years.

Anyhow, it's not like I sit there and smoke a whole cigar and inhale the entire thing at one time. I'll light it, smoke some, forget it's going, notice it's out and still in my mouth (or an ashtray) an relight it and then chuck it away and grab a new one 'cause they get kind of gross after you relight them a few times. If I had to guess an average then I'd say that I might be smoking 1/2 to 2/3. Rough estimate, of course. I kind of like the feel and I'm sure I'm addicted as all hell though I don't seem to mind too much when I stop smoking for a while? Maybe the cravings don't bother me too much as I've dealt with other addictions in the past.

Re:I smoke a little...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been a cigarette (now ex), pipe, and cigar smoker for 30 years. I don't know why your posting was moderated so high, but I fear it might give some readers bad information who might not know otherwise...

Pipe and cigar smokers, in large, *rarely* inhale and most never do. The vast majority will allow smoke in and out of their mouth and sometimes in through the mouth and out the nose, but very few ever inhale (defined as in the lungs). Most pipe and cigar tobacco smoke is very strong and very harsh and not suitable for inhaling (espcially if it quality stuff like English). If you don't believe me, please feel free to survey people on any of the numerous forums and groups. I personally know a *LOT* of pipe smokers (through clubs and groups) and not a single one (including me) inhale. I know of a few through forums, but they are also active cigarette smokers... so use that data point how you like.

And your saying "[not inhaling] would be like eating fat-free ice cream or drinking alcohol-free beer or decaffeinated coffee" is extraordinarily dubious. It is like saying one can't enjoy a glass of wine without getting drunk. There is far more to enjoying a fine tobacco in the form of a pipe or cigar than just getting nicotine.

Nicotine is an especially interesting chemical. When inhaled in free-base form (which is what is in cigarattes, and is DESIGNED to be that way), it is a stimulant and highly addictive. And that is why you very rarely see "casual" seasoned cigarette smokers (IE- non-beginners). Conversely, when absorbed slowly (and less often) over a long time, as with cigars and pipes, it is more of a mild sedative. And in THAT light, you rarely see a "hooked/addicted" cigar/pipe smoker- he will often have one or two a day, or less. Often go days or longer without smoking at all.

When used in a non-enclosed space and not inhaled (the norm) the health risks are very small for cigar/pipe smokers. In fact, several studies have shown that, overall, regular casual [non-inhaling] pipe smokers have a life expectancy equal OR LONGER compared to that of non-smokers. It is a significantly higher risk for cigar smokers, but just for oral cancer. Neither have any significant additional risk for lung disease. Certainly not so with cigarette smoking, which will ravage delicate lung tissue over time. Inhaling pipe or cigar smoke is just as dangerous as cigarettes, perhaps more. Regardless of the above *NO TOBACCO USE IS WITHOUT RISK*. But few things worth doing are without risk, either.

Use and enjoy tobacco how you want, but people reading your post should know that you are NOT the "norm".

Re:I smoke a little...

[KGIII]

I've never been normal and no, I'd not drink wine without the end goal of getting intoxicated (though to which degree that would be would vary). Oddly enough, today is the 3rd anniversary of my stopping drinking - very strange to think about. Anyhow, no - as you can probably now guess, I'm neither normal nor would I drink a glass of wine just for the flavor.

Re:I smoke a little...

[VAXcat]

Oh, I most definitely plan to. I also plan to recommend to everyone I can not to as well...thus my previous post. I recommend you not do it, since you run the risk of going through something similar - it's probably not very pleasant to look back on having enjoyed a few cigars when you are paying the price of unimaginable pain, disfigurement and early death.

is this how the usa and israel created a vaccine?

[Anonymous Coward]

is this how the usa and israel created a vaccine?

stop spraying crap on us 24/7

[Anonymous Coward]

might help... polymer polynorph polyman... no wonder we're becoming smokestacks.. hairballs.... never ends hopefully

Here's the fast version of the 4 paragraph article

[mwfischer]

"By comparing smokers and non-smokers as well as those with the disease and without they discovered sections of our DNA that reduce the risk of COPD.
So smokers with "good genes" had a lower risk of COPD than those with "bad genes"."

Top notch reporting, everyone. Solid work.

Won't stop the moral hysteria

[NotDrWho]

The anti-smoking hysteria long ago became a moral issue, not a scientific one. It started out as a medical issue, but has since morphed into a Holy Crusade. That's why smoking ban policies almost always include e-cigarettes too, even though there is no evidence that they pose any medical danger to anyone. E-cigs are seen as part of the immorality of the practice of smoking itself.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[thaylin]

That is an oversimplification. First of all where I live relatively few places ban e-cigs, the few that do ban them is more about people not wanting cloaks of smoke, or nicotine steam, sprewed on them.

But to be honest you do not know what is in the vaps. Are they using the "safe" liquids you can buy at the store, or did they mix their own and have other "unsafe" chemicals in them. You are free to smoke, you are not free to poison me.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

The vapor contains nicotine, and nicotine is a stimulant, last I checked. Keep the vapor from polluting the common air, and I don't care how much of an idiot you look like puffing on a box.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm fine with the "no smoking" at gov/public sites, but they shouldn't be able to tell a private restaurant owner that he/she has to ban smoking at their establishment. People can choose to go there or not and I think you would have enough financial support on both sides of the smoking debate to run a business.

Actually, I wish they would ban smoking on city sidewalks rather than in places like bars/restaurants. At least then I can avoid it.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

It's my god given right to spew whatever chemicals I want. It's in the bible, right next to the second amendment. If I want to eat at a restaurant they should be free to allow me to spray nicotine, carbon dioxide, chlorine, nerve gas, whatever I want! Wear a gas mask if that bothers you, you unamerican commie bum!

And if you don't like that, then you should go find a place that doesn't because that's how the free market works. Keep your damn government meddling out of my chemical spraying!

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always been a moral crusade, just one that happened to have medical science on its side. Crusaders were happy to use the medical aspect as a way into the hearts and minds of the public who were not so inclined to use the police power of the state to tell people what they can put in their own bodies. When e-cigarettes came about the crusaders viewed it as "cheating" against their elaborate Web of local laws taxing cigarettes and regulating their use. The campaign against e-cigarettes features the same arguments as the campaign against marijuana - "it's a gateway drug for kids ... won't anyone think of the children."

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[thaylin]

I have honestly never ever seen that argument. I have seen,and made the argument that you dont know what is in the vapor, but always seems to be ignored.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the Holy Crusaders have mod points too.

Condemn the heretic to flamebait!!

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

And how would I know when I enter a restaurant that half way through my meal the person in the table next to mine is not going to start spewing unknown chemicals in my direction?

Should I then be forced to get up and leave, without finishing eating but having to pay for it, or be poisoned?

Well you could start by reading the fucking sign on the door which states "This is a Smoking establishment", and if you're worried about it go somewhere else.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[thaylin]

Who said anything about a sign? And how large is the sign? Does it have to be in specific places or can it be hidden? Does it have to be in braille for the blind? What about kids, will the establishment be forced to turn away unaccompanied teenagers?

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[The Grim Reefer]

And how would I know when I enter a restaurant that half way through my meal the person in the table next to mine is not going to start spewing unknown chemicals in my direction?

They could be required to post a sign on the entrance that states whether it is a smoking, or non-smoking establishment. By the tobacco stench you would probably notice before opening the door more than halfway. Or the ashtrays on the tables might be a clue.

I quit smoking over a decade ago, but I feel there should be places for smokers to do their thing. I prefer to not be around it, but I'm not a militant non-smoker either. Taxes on tobacco does a lot of good. And smokers tend to be less costly on the medical system as well.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Not sure how it works in the States, but the grounding for the EU-wide ban in 2007 was industrial health and safety.
It was intended to protect the establishment's employeees, not people subjected to smoke in their face while dining. That latter effect is just a bonus.

Re: Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I have nothing against people smoking and I think it shouldn't be banned. But only as long as they smoke inside a portable closed environment like a fishbowl in their head.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[narcc]

If you're going to ban things that "pollute the common air" based on fear, misinformation, and paranoia I vote we ban scented candles and perfumes.

Scented candles fill the air with an mix of thousands of unknown chemicals. Worse, the FDA has not evaluated their safety! I don't care how much of an idiot you look like with your miniature fires.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[thaylin]

And do you block all children from entering, or atleast the teenagers coming to eat with friends?

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[The Grim Reefer]

And do you block all children from entering, or atleast the teenagers coming to eat with friends?

Way to move the goal post. Regardless, I would think it would depend on the legal age for smoking, wouldn't it? Hell, bars already deal with this. If someone's under 21, they have to be accompanied by their guardian in most places. There are tobacco bars as well. Have smoking restaurants follow the same policy.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anon-Admin]

They contain,

food grade vegetable glycerin
food grade propylene glycol
nicotine
food grade Flavoring agents

Some people will use lab grade which just designates the purity of the substance.

Many point to the flavoring agents as the unknown in the mix. Most are simple essential oils extracted from the plant to provide flavoring. For example, a cool mint e-cig juice will contain a spearmint essential oil.

In most cases, finding out what is in the juice is as simple as reading the list of ingredients on the bottle or the makers website.

All of the ones I have seen stick to stuff that is consumed by people regularly. They dont want the risks of using something that is not food safe.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[circletimessquare]

the issue is freedom, you're right

but not freedom according to an immature douchebag: "i can do whatever i want, damn the consequences", but an actual mature understanding of freedom: "i can do whatever i want, as long as it doesn't impinge on the freedoms of others"

unfortunately, those who whine about freedom ("freedumb") the most are the former category of people

genuine freedom is not always, not even mostly, destroyed by big bad evil government out to rape you because its a cartoon character and this is the only stereotypical denial of freedom most people understand. genuine freedom is actually mostly destroyed on a day-to-day basis in small ways by the immature shitbags around you, the ones who also whine the most about freedumb:

1. my freedom to get a good nights sleep, my neighbor's freedumb to blast music at 3 AM,
2. my freedom to enjoy my property, my neighbor's freedumb to have his dog shit and piss on my lawn,
3. my freedom to make it to work alive, some douchebag's freedumb to speed 95 mph,
4. and: my freedom to breathe clean air, some vaping or smoking asshole's freedumb to choke everyone around them with their poison

you, in your champioining of freedumb (the inability to understand you have no right to limit the freedom of other's in what you do), are on the same side of authoritarian governments and other freedom destroys. why do authoritarian government's limit freedom? because they are a cartoon character "let's destroy freedom because we hate it and we're an empty evil construct!"? no: they believe free speech about politics, or publications about human sexuality, or assembling to air grievances, is a grave threat to their hold on power, or even just society in general. in this way, they feel they have a right to deny freedom to others (inaccurately and unjustifiably)

likewise, you destroy freedom for your own lame, selfish reasons. you are what you hate: you are a freedom destroyer. but you're too fucking stupid to properly understand what freedom really is

clue for you: freedom does not exist anywhere in the world without a populace that also understands responsibility. for those retards in society who don't act responsibly, we need police and enforcement. not to destroy freedom with state employed goons just for fun and profit because we're empty cartoon characters who hate freedom because that is what is written in this bad movie script that you think somehow resembles reality. but so the rest of us can enjoy our freedom without douchebags and assholes like you poisoning us with carcinogenic smoke, killing us in car crashes, shitting on our lawns, or ruining our sleep

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight. So, Christians are bad because they want to ban smoking because of their morality crusade, and at the same time they are bad because they (at the same time) oppose bans on smoking because "it's right next to second amendment in the Bible"?

Christianophobe "logic".

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet assholes like you, circletimessquare, demand the freedom to murder both my lungs and our climate by driving your poison-spewing automobiles.

You disgust me. People like you are murderers, pure and simple.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing in the GP implied that "Christians are bad". You just want to feel like a persecuted martyr.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, of course, that was totally not aimed at Christians, sorry, you're right and I am wrong. There's TONS of other classes of people who actually care what the Bible says. TONS I say!

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[circletimessquare]

i give your troll 2/10

when crafting a good troll, you have to irrationally blame your target for choices that have something to do with them

you get 2 points for the obligatory feigned outrage

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anon-Admin]

Wow, the stupid is strong in this one.

#1 and #2 are on your own property. If you want your property to be smoke free, *thumps up* go for it, that is your right.
#3 is bull shit, driving a car is a privilege not a freedom. That is why you have a license by the state to operate it.

#4) you state: "my freedom to breathe clean air, some vaping or smoking asshole's freedumb to choke everyone around them with their poison"

Wow, just wow. You dont have a freedom to breath clean air. You can however breath all the clean air you want, on your own property and/or in your own house. There is no right to breath clean air. When you exit your house you dont get the choice. It is taken away by that car you drive, the diesel rig that passed you on the highway, The mold growing in your office A/C etc.etc.

If you dont like my smoke or vapor, you do have the right to travel so you can go somewhere else.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Dragonslicer]

So I'm fine with the "no smoking" at gov/public sites, but they shouldn't be able to tell a private restaurant owner that he/she has to ban smoking at their establishment.

When you allow members of the general public to walk in and patronize your business (i.e. you aren't a members-only club), your establishment is no longer entirely private. It's been that way in the United States for decades.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[dunkelfalke]

And a good bonus at that. I seldom visited a restaurant before that ban because I find smoke disgusting.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh it is always aimed at Christians. In to today's modern media saturated society there are groups that are acceptable and those that are sub human. Sub humans consists of smokers, white people, conservatives, Christians, etc. It goes without saying he was targeting Christians. They are always targeting Christians. The above groups spend all their day raping black babies and committing unwriteable atrocities against the world. Don't agree with me you are obviously one of those groups and fit for extermination because all you do is hate, hate, and hate some more.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[thaylin]

I did not move the goal posts in any way. It goes tiredly towards your sign comment, which implies that adults are allowed to make up their mind about what places they enter. This is less so for kids, so just a simple sign does not work.

But you have basically come to the end conclusion of a "club" which can already exist.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[circletimessquare]

it's an ok troll. i give you 5 out 10. you tried hard, but it was overall weak and unconvincing

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[The Grim Reefer]

But you have basically come to the end conclusion of a "club" which can already exist.

That depends on the location. In Maryland, you cannot. The only way it is legal to have the main purpose to be retail sale of tobacco. I actually bring that particular state up as I lived there when they banned smoking. The way the original law was written, it also defined a public place by the number of different people who accessed it during a set period of time. The number was very low and many people's homes would have counted as a public place.

According to Wikipedia Of the 28 states that have smoking bans on public places, only 7 (AZ, CT, IA, KS, MA, NY, OH) allow for private clubs that permit it.

As far as I could tell, the states that exempt bars, do so only if they do not admit anyone under the age of 21. So your question about children appears to already to have been addressed.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[jbengt]

. . . I vote we ban scented candles and perfumes.

I join you in your vote. (Even though you seem to be kidding, I would be well pleased if that ban were voted in . . . and enforced with my daughter.)

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[jbengt]

So, now we know what's "in the juice", but what's in the vapor?

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

I find Korean food disgusting (and unhealthy too, for that matter). But I don't want to ban it, or stop others from partaking in that disgusting shit if that's what they're stupid enough to shove in their fat fucking face-holes.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[NotDrWho]

That + water

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[moeinvt]

I find it highly unlikely that people who are behaving in a manner which is rude or reckless have deliberately developed a philosophical basis to justify their behavior.

Anyone interested in liberty from a societal standpoint knows that there can be no freedom which infringes on the freedom of others. Most liberty activists also hold private property rights in high regard, so I can't imagine an argument for allowing one's animal to defile the property of others.

At least try talking to your neighbors before calling men with badges and guns to mediate the dispute for you. I've never had a problem with a neighbor that couldn't be settled with dialogue. Most of the time, it's a case of one person having no clue that they were even bothering the other.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

So, now we know what's "in the juice", but what's in the vapor?

God of the gaps has moved to the medical field. Wonderful.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

I give your response a 2 out of 10 for failing to recognize that the definition of "troll" is not synonymous with "anyone who disagrees with me."

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

And what are the effects of inhaling vaporized food grade propylene glycol?

Is one of the effects that lung tissue becomes coated in a substance that more readily captures particulate matter as well as gaseous carcinogens and other toxins? What interactions with other compounds? I respected coworker of mine that used to vape mentioned having come across studies that suggested it's not all great news on this front. I'm too lazy to dig for information to confirm or deny this myself.

Eating something is not the same as breathing it. I myself am in the process of using e-cigarettes as a substitute for cigarettes, and while I hope that this is a less-unhealthy alternative, I acknowledge that I have no basis to make such a claim. I'm hoping that I'll be able to kick the habit entirely soon enough and that it'll all be worth it in the end.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[circletimessquare]

you're saying you have the right to pollute public spaces with your filth?

and we can't object to that?

you mean you actually believe that honestly?

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[circletimessquare]

you do realize stupid and irresponsible people exist, right? it's not about a fucking philosophy you social retard, i'm describing a system of behavior without any conscious effort. people actually commit acts in your world without going "hmm, how do my current actions in this context relate to my overarching ideological motivation?"

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anon-Admin]

You have the right to object to it (Freedom of speech) No issue there.

Places like Restaurants, Bar's, Shopping Mall's, etc. are privately owned. IMO they have the right to decide how they want there property used. Thus they can decide to be smoking or not / and you can decide to utilize there space or not.

Outside, well if you dont like it tough shit. You dont have to stand next to me, there is lots of open space on the planet. You can move.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[dunkelfalke]

A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

> they shouldn't be able to tell a private restaurant owner that he/she has to ban smoking at their establishment. People can choose to go there or not

In these cases it's not just about the patrons, but also any employees that work there. Sitting for 30 minutes among smokers as a fellow patron may be bad enough, but an employee that must spend their entire shift breathing second-hand smoke/vape is significantly more risky.

At least, there's more at stake for those that have to find another job than those that have to find another restaurant.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I am right and you are wrong.

An offhand mention of the Bible, made in a larger context that has nothing to do with religion, does not translate to "Christians are bad". And you know it. You're pretending that it does, for the same reason people like you insist that there's a War On Christmas!(TM)

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not saying that, and you don't believe that he is.

You are lying about what he said, because you know that what he ACTUALLY said - that you are dishonestly trying to redefine "troll" as "disagrees with me" - is absolutely correct and irrefutable.

This is what you always do when you're losing an argument, which happens pretty much every time you have one.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[drkoemans]

It's rarely a good idea to reply to an AC but I'll bite. I'm not saying it's good or bad for you, I don't know but propylene glycol is the same stuff they use in artificial fog for stage smoke machines. I haven't heard of too many stage manager deaths related to smoke machines. Given the time I spent in rock clubs in my youth I'm sure I've inhaled gallons of the stuff. While it doesn't appear carcinogenic, it can be related to respiratory irritation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[drkoemans]

Often mis-attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, the succinct phrase "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins." sums this sentiment up nicely.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[circletimessquare]

i can't imagine anyone honestly believes they have the right to impose on the freedom of others

but apparently he does, and you can't even keep track of the fucking subject matter. i suppose you're the real troll, or genuinely a stupid person, considering this thread

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[circletimessquare]

you're changing the topic. a public space is a public space. not the middle of the prairie but, just like you said: restaurants, bars, malls, etc

i'll take the lame subject change as you conceding my point in an intellectually dishonest way

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[circletimessquare]

it does, thank you

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[goose-incarnated]

That is an oversimplification. First of all where I live relatively few places ban e-cigs, the few that do ban them is more about people not wanting cloaks of smoke, or nicotine steam, sprewed on them.

But to be honest you do not know what is in the vaps. Are they using the "safe" liquids you can buy at the store, or did they mix their own and have other "unsafe" chemicals in them. You are free to smoke, you are not free to poison me.

You do a lot more poison damage than I do, even where I to smoke 5 packs of ciggies a day. What's that? You want to keep your energy-sucking lifestyle? Yeah, well, I think I'll keep my pack a day.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[goose-incarnated]

you're saying you have the right to pollute public spaces with your filth?

Nope. You said that you should be able to do it using your car, but you want to limit anyone else smoking ciggies who will never even come close to the amount of pollution you put out.

Tyrannical, hypocritical and stupid - well, done, you made a hat-trick.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anon-Admin]

What I am saying is that you dont have the right to tell others how to live there life or how to run there business just because you want to go there.

As such, what you think are public spaces are not, they are private spaces that are used by the public and the private owners have the right to do as they see fit with their space. Just as a business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason they see fit.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[circletimessquare]

What I am saying is that you dont have the right to tell others how to live there life or how to run there business just because you want to go there.

exactly

like smoking or vaping. you're telling people "smell my shit, deal with it." what the fuck gives you the right?

what's odd is your blindness in thinking that telling someone to stop imposing their smelly shit on other people... is the actual initial imposition, somehow

you think telling someone to stop smoking or vaping is a limit on freedom, but you don't think the smell of that cancerous shit is a limit on freedom?

that's some amazing blindness, low intelligence, and/ or willful selfish disregard, you social retard

either way, you genuinely have no fucking clue what freedom is. you think the concept applies only to you, and no one else. this makes you a selfish, stupid piece of shit. not an empty insult, an objective description of your low intelligence "opinion," such as it is. you genuinely are not anyone who loves or understands what freedom is. really, that's the ironclad truth, as evidenced in your words. you're just an irresponsible, immature, selfish douchebag. i feel sorry for people who have to deal with your toxic self-serving bullshit in real life. stop talking about freedom. it has nothing to do with who you are and what you think. nothing at all

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Reziac]

A point that might need to be examined is -- how do the various ingredients interact when heated? Do they combine to make some less healthful chemical? Is it significantly more harmful than what you might fry up for dinner?

Tho even if not quite harmless, it still doubtless compares quite favorably to the array of ring carbon compounds etc. in cig smoke.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

They contain,

food grade vegetable glycerin
food grade propylene glycol
nicotine
food grade Flavoring agents

Some people will use lab grade which just designates the purity of the substance.

Many point to the flavoring agents as the unknown in the mix. Most are simple essential oils extracted from the plant to provide flavoring. For example, a cool mint e-cig juice will contain a spearmint essential oil.

In most cases, finding out what is in the juice is as simple as reading the list of ingredients on the bottle or the makers website.

I'm not sure if I'm in the minority but I have never seen a complete ingredient list among several brands of "e-juice". I just checked 6 different brands I have on my shelf. 2 of them do have a close-to-complete list (in smallest font possible) which contains non-specific "artificial and natural flavoring." One of those actually says "may contain peanuts". One also claims that the glycerine or propylene glycol is "USP Grade" but make no mention of their "flavoring" is.

Others simply not that they "contain" or "may contain" nicotine.

I've also seen reports of the heat burning up trace amounts of plastic (in some unspecified brands) and also that heating may change the chemical makeup.

I'm not saying they're unsafe - I believe they're safer than cigarettes but let's not jump to the conclusion that they're 100% safe as so many vape-fanatics claim.

They're pretty much unregulated as far as I know.

Anecdotally they sometimes make me cough more than regular cigarettes did, they tend to dry up your mouth sometimes and they have never been nearly as satisfying as cigarettes either.

Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria

[Anon-Admin]

Read the above again, I am saying the land owner, business owner, home owner, car owner, etc. has the right. Not you and not me, We can only decide if we want to go there, or do business with them.

You are the one who seems to think you have the right to tell other people what to do with their property.

Freedom is a box. This is my box and I control it, that is your box and you control it. What I do in my box is my business and what you do in yours is your business. You can not tell me what to do in my box and I can not tell you what to do in yours.

BTW, there is no freedom from smells. Get out of NY City and onto a farm and you lean that very quickly.

Where do I get my genemod?

[drinkypoo]

I miss tobacco.

Re:Where do I get my genemod?

[swb]

You could always use a vaporizer. In theory it's everything you love about nicotine without the stink or the smoke.

Good is better than bad,

[Anonymous Coward]

and bad is worse than good. Time to pack up, work here is done!

Re:is this how the usa and israel created a vaccin

[Foobar of Borg]

is this how the usa and israel created a vaccine?

No, they got their vaccine information from our shape-shifting reptilian alien overlords. How else are they supposed to create a control group as they test the effects of chemtrails?

Same gene for asbestos workers or coal miners?

[mnemotronic]

I wonder if the same genetic mutation applies to people who are, or were, exposed to asbestos. And coal miners? I wonder if there other genes that affect immunity to other common conditions? For example, what gene makes politicians immune to compassion and common sense?

Re:Same gene for asbestos workers or coal miners?

[roman_mir]

I want to find out what genes are responsible for nearsighted stupidity and infinite greed of those, who are moralizing others about compassion while voting for politicians who promise to steal from the fee that have more and to give subsidies to those, who are voting for it?

I want to know what makes somebody so blind to their own violent and greedy while cowardice nature that they are inclined to steal and rob by using the force of the collective and calling the resulting oppression and theft 'compassion'?

Re:Same gene for asbestos workers or coal miners?

[thaylin]

No gene, it is called the human nature Every side does this, or atleast it is seen as being that way to the other side.

Re:Same gene for asbestos workers or coal miners?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, try again in English please?

Re:Same gene for asbestos workers or coal miners?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure I have alcohol immunity genes. I mean. I still get drunk super easily. But I drink every night and am totally fine the next day. Must be something to do with being part Irish and part German.

Re:Same gene for asbestos workers or coal miners?

[TheCarp]

Oh this is certainly the case in many places. Cancer is a perfect example. It often requires several genetic mutations for a normal cell to become cancerous, partially because there are many safegaurds against it.

Each individual starts at a random point closer or further away from any particular cancerous state, and in fact, from all of them individually, and this is true not just for cancer but for all manner of subtle variation.

Life is a big game of bet hedging. You toss 100 people naked in the cold, and they will not all die at the same time. Take 100 and toss them in the heat, and you will find the same. Some will survive longer without water, some without food. Its all thousands of subtle variations. Some will be better at developing immunity to flu, some will be better at small pox. If this wasn't true, then we would all be wiped out. Just look at the bannana if you want to know the weakness of monoculture. We don't even eat the same ones our parents did.

Did you know that they have already found drugs that failed in clinical trials, no better than placebo for the general population, but were found to work rather effectively for individuals who had particular genetic variations?

Re:Same gene for asbestos workers or coal miners?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once did a research project a few years back trying to correlate cigarette smoking with genetic mutation. Guess what? There was no direct, statistically significant correlation to pack years and overall genetic stability based on micro-satellite instability correlated to non smoking familial data. So does this mean that smoking does not cause genetic damage, or does it mean that some people were better able to repair their own DNA or destroy pre-cancer?

  We got our grant, finished our work, published, and went on to look for areas that were commonly mutated in those that already had cancer, and not focus on the smoking population in general. A person without cancer is not going to have the same mutations as someone with cancer, regardless of whether or not they smoke. That is the bottom line.

I tell my friends that still smoke that it is a dice roll, that any one of the cigarettes, drinks, meals, or whatever they put in their body could be the thing that causes the mutation that ends in cancer. Genetics do play a role, as does environment, and diet, and age, and so many other things that no one experiment could every control for the orchestra that is a biological system.

Don't smoke, but love nicotine... go figure.

How about livers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a scotch-resistant liver, I can drink a bottle of scotch in an evening and wake up the next day only slightly affected; no headache, no stomach ache, no nothing, just slightly tired.

But two glasses of red wine and the next day I can have violent diarrhea and gut problems, a few beers is the same thing. Seems like the alcohol is not the problem, it's the unfiltered nastiness in the lesser drinks that causes problems.

Maybe smoking is the same thing, some lungs can handle toxins better than others.

Rare?

[unixcorn]

Smoke this and make sure you get the smoke deep down into your lungs. It's tobacco, it' one of the healthiest things for your body!

Re:Rare?

[dunkelfalke]

smoke kills

Rare?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not rare at all. Every smoker's grandpa had those lungs.

They're still scumbags

[Mark4ST]

I was once a smoker, and would never go back regardless of my superlungs because:

• --It breaks up your attention span into one hour chunks
• --It wastes heaps of money
• --It supports the douchebags who make it and sell it
• --It stinks up everything in your life
• --It signals others that you're not in control of your own person

Re:They're still scumbags

[MagickalMyst]

Excellent post! Mod +1

Re:They're still scumbags

[Falos]

I'm especially bitter about #3. Partly because I hate being a puppet (see 5) but also because Fuck Those Guys.

And gals. Equal opportunity middlefinger here.

They're content to put whatever they want in it, sell it by any means, and exploit their very clientele as much as the law allows. "Brand loyalty" is a one-way street, they give zero fucks about you. Less, even, except dead customers aren't paying customers. So, again, Fuck Those Guys.

The remaining reasons stand as turnoffs for tobacco outside the cig industry. Though that gives me enough yield to do it at a social event or something. Recreationally. Like how I drink at the annual party or two.

But apparently I don't frequent the circles where it's common to sit down in a venerable, leather-scented study and offer your chess guest a pipe with his brandy.

That's a thing, right?

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are free to smoke, you are not free to poison me.

Chances are, you're one of those shitlords driving to work each day.

What gives you the right to pollute my air?

Get a job where you can telecommute, you tyrannical, murdering prick.

You lie.

[tacokill]

a great deal of street grade marijuna is very poor quality, may be pesticide or herbicide contaminated, and is very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US
You lie. Not only is this not happening, your little tale doesn't even pass the smell test. Dealers selling bad marijuana are not lacing/spiking it with PCP. The dealers are in this to make money and buying PCP so they can sprinkle on their weed seems like a bad story from a 1982 DARE program speech. What's next, the kid who took LSD and thought he could fly?

How about this instead: a great deal of street grade marijuana is sold because marijuana sells itself. Nothing else needs to be added.

Re:You lie.

[dixonpete]

I sometimes walk my dog with a guy who once took LSD and decided he could fly. It took three guys to pull him off the roof.

Re:You lie.

[Anonymous Coward]

your friend is an idiot, it was natural selection. When didn't he do a test run from the ground?

Re:You lie.

[mjwx]

a great deal of street grade marijuna is very poor quality, may be pesticide or herbicide contaminated, and is very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US

You lie. Not only is this not happening, your little tale doesn't even pass the smell test. Dealers selling bad marijuana are not lacing/spiking it with PCP. The dealers are in this to make money and buying PCP so they can sprinkle on their weed seems like a bad story from a 1982 DARE program speech. What's next, the kid who took LSD and thought he could fly?

How about this instead: a great deal of street grade marijuana is sold because marijuana sells itself. Nothing else needs to be added.

Even in the extremely unlikely off chance that some dealers are cutting marijuana with some other substance (why, I cant fathom, there aren't really any cheaper drugs that are more powerful) this is just a huge argument for decriminalisation. If the quality of the product is an issue, regulate it or at the very least allow it to be produced openly and let the market weed out dodgy products.

Also as a previous Marijuana smoker in my youth, I highly dispute the notion that THC is as addictive as tobacco or even alcohol (which I also dont class as highly addictive). I dont smoke every day... I dont even smoke every month. I might have a cone 2 or 3 times a year. You dont see many smokers who only have three or four cigarettes a year.

Re:You lie.

[BoogieChile]

> What's next, the kid who took LSD and thought he could fly?

Wow, Tacokill was right!

We may be stoners, but we can use a conjunction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. It's harmful like marijuana, which clearly causes no parallel effects to cigarettes like elevated pulse, vasoconstriction, altered state of consciosness, and has no chance of causing addiction or of introducing naturally carcinogenic chemicals to your mouth and other respiratory passages.

"It clearly causes no parallel effects like has no chance of causing addiction" I'm not sure which is worse, being a stoner or not knowing how to use the word "and".

Pot is less harmful because you smoke less

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know what the resin that accumulates on the end of the roach is? That's tar.
You get a shitload more tar at the end of a joint than you at the end of a cigarette.
But nobody smokes 2 packs a day of weed.

It's hell on your immune system too

[Radical Moderate]

I quit smoking 20 years ago, and now I miss work due to illness once every few years. I sat in on a medical conference back when I smoked, and it seemed like every presenter ended with "...and we never see this disease/condition in anyone under 50...except chronic smokers." I quit soon after that.

The world is crying out for better pain killers

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Medical marijuana has a lot of promise as pain management.

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) doesn't work all that well and can kill your liver if you have a relatively mild overdose.

Ibuprofin and NSAIDs don't work all that well for severe pain and also can have nasty side effects like stomach ulceration.

Opiates do work well, even for severe pain, but they have lots of very nasty side effects, lose effectiveness, and become addictive. These are really horrible drugs.

Humanity is crying out for better painkillers, and marijuana, yes, medical marijuana, has promise there. Or do you not consider management of severe chronic pain a valid medical reason?

And there are not a "tiny number" of people with chronic pain. I'd argue ALL the other drugs are as bad or worse than marijuana for that application.

--PM

Re:The world is crying out for better pain killers

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitragyna_speciosa

http://www.amazon.com/Kratom-Everything-Harness-Power-Potent/dp/1505673836/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1443463025&sr=8-3&keywords=kratom

Wonderful plant that has helped treat both alcoholism and arthritis. It's legal in most of the US and you can find it in pill and powered form on Amazon.

Put it through the drug review process

[sjbe]

Humanity is crying out for better painkillers, and marijuana, yes, medical marijuana, has promise there. Or do you not consider management of severe chronic pain a valid medical reason?

I'll consider it a valid medical treatment when it is sold through a pharmacy like any other drug. It it works for pain management then I am all for it. I'm even willing to accept that there is evidence that it could be an effective treatment for some. HOWEVER, stop conflating the issue. Most people aren't going to get medical marijuana cards for pain management. They are getting them so they can get high. If you believe otherwise you are either naive or you are one of the people trying to get high yourself. I strongly believe that marijuana should be regulated roughly the same as tobacco or alcohol but I'm not dumb enough to believe the transparent arguments that people are making for non-existent medical conditions that conveniently can only be treated by getting high with weed.

If we want to use products of cannabis to treat medical conditions then that is fine but let's do it just like we do for any other drug. It needs to go through the FDA and be tested in double blind studies just like any other drug. Show me the evidence and the properly conducted medical studies and I'm 100% on board if it works.

And there are not a "tiny number" of people with chronic pain. I'd argue ALL the other drugs are as bad or worse than marijuana for that application.

And you received your medical degree from where exactly? You've already spouted off a bunch of half informed nonsense to try to make the side effects of existing medications sound more horrible than they really are. You've also only selected a few of the many pain killers out there. I've dealt with pain management with family members personally including my mother right now. Your argument demonstrates to me that you have no idea what you are talking about on that topic.

Re:Put it through the drug review process

[david_thornley]

Before marijuana can be treated like any other drug, the Feds need to take it off Schedule I, where it very definitely doesn't belong.

Re:Put it through the drug review process

[beastofburdon]

That will never happen because you cannot patent a natural plant, and that is the only reason it is not sold in pharmacies now, because it used to be sold in all pharmacies.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Tobacco companies are vindicated.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It clearly shows the Government over reach and onerous regulation is crippling the industry. There are genes capable of fighting the ill effects of tobacco. Just give enough cigarettes to enough generations the genes incapable of handling tobacco would have exited the gene pool quietly, (quiet except for some coughing and wheezing) and the future generations would have become strong, capable of handling copious quantities of cigarette smoke and other pollutants.

This is what Government does for you, makes our future generations weaker, and makes our current generation of companies weaker.

Any regulation thought up the Washington bureaucrats the takes away the potential profits of a legitimate product is nothing but theft.

Remember the constitutions folks, it starts: We, the corporations of America, in Order to form a more perfect economy ...

Bah!

[Maury Markowitz]

"may one day help scientists develop better treatments for diseases"

Enough already! Any post with this statement in it should be placed in the same bit bucket as "supermoon".

Proves my point about tobacco

[p51d007]

Smoking doesn't "cause" cancer, unless you are genetically predisposed for cancer. My grandfather, born in the late 1800's, started smoking unfiltered cigarettes, as an 18 year old draftee in WW1. He smoked unfiltered cigarettes until the 1970's. He quit cold turkey, because, and I quote "I'm not paying no d*mn 75 cents for a pack of d*mn cigrettes". (I could just imagine what he would say now. He lived until he was 99 years, 3 months old. He even had a pacemaker at age 85. When the doc was telling my parents, his caregivers, about what to do/not do, one of the things was to transmit the data via a phone link once a week or something, to monitor the condition of the battery. My grandfather heard battery, and asked the doc how you change the battery. Doc told him that at his age, he shouldn't worry about wearing the battery out. Grandfather didn't miss a beat....Doc, I've already outlived THREE doctors. My parents smoked from the early 1950's, until the mid 70's when their children just flat got tired of the stink. Both in their 80's with no cancer. I think the whole tobacco as the "bad guy" is overblown. Yes, smoking isn't the best thing to put in your LUNGS, considering all the chemicals, but, to say smoking causes cancer, is not really true either, if you have a genetic predisposition for cancer. Considering how much the government gets via a tobacco tax, you'd think they would just love it if EVERYONE smoked tobacco products.

Support Tobacco Use

[lazy genes]

It may work to our advantage. By supporting tobacco use, we are keeping a destructive individules at bay. If tobacco was outlawed, the people that sold addictive products that kill people would just find another way to kill people. At least we know where all the pyscopaths are now. Maybe you will be one of these people in your next lives.

A pox upon you

[beastofburdon]

I truly hope that you are someday afflicted by an illness that is easily treated with cannabis. I also hope that you still have a prejudice against it so that you will suffer through the illness without medication.